Public health campaigns often focus on increasing risk awareness (Weinstein
1993). • This is based on psychological theory. – Protection Motivation Theory: ...
Lindsay Rand Jonah Berger ACP Conference, May 2009 University of Michigan
•
Public health campaigns often focus on increasing risk awareness (Weinstein 1993)
•
This is based on psychological theory – Protection Motivation Theory: Health decisions are based on perceived severity of and vulnerability to risks (Rogers 1983)
• Behavior can act as markers or signals of social identity (Berger and Heath 2007)
• Health behaviors are no different – Decisions are driven by characteristics associated with that behavior (Gibbons and Gerrard 1995, 1997)
• Individuals who are more sensitive to how they are viewed by others are more likely to alter their behavior to achieve a desired public image (Snyder 1974) Could linking risky behaviors to undesired social identities be effective in improving behavior?
• Social in-groups and out-groups for our participants were used as part of the identity manipulations. How much they would you want to be thought of as: A faculty member? As an athlete? As a sorority/fraternity member? Etc. • How much do you like each group? • Graduate Students and Online Gamers were both liked but students reported not wanting to be mistaken for a member of either group.
• Participants exposed to information associating junk food consumption either with their in-group (control condition) or an out-group (Graduate Students). • Made a number of real food choices in a public pseudostore environment. • Several of the choice pairs were designed with one healthier option. vs.
• The number of junk food items each participant chose was summed and examined by condition. 4 3
3 2.16
2 1 0 Control
Out‐Group
(F (1,47) = 4.08, p < .05)
When unhealthy behaviors were linked to a generally dissociative out-group, participants in our study made healthier choices.
• Manipulation flyer linking junk food consumption with Online Gamers. • Control flyer presented health facts. • Order sheet (purportedly from the vending machine company) placed on each machine asking patrons to write down what they ordered.
• Each food item from the vending machines were rated on a scale of -1 (unhealthy) to +1 (healthy).
Perceived Health Value
0 ‐0.2
Control
Out‐Group ‐0.21
‐0.4 ‐0.6 ‐0.8
‐0.58 F(1, 85) = 4.56, p < .04)
Simple flyers that established a link between an avoidance group and junk food consumption led people to make healthier choices.
•
Participants filled out a short packet of surveys including a self-monitoring scale.
•
Also read a newspaper article either linking poor eating habits with Online Gamers (out-group) or a control subject.
•
Research associate recorded what participants ordered once they were inside the café.
•
Food items were rated on a scale of -1 (unhealthy) to +1 (healthy).
